Even sharing copyrighted material is not necessarily illegal. Let's say you have an old 8-track of the White Album, but alas, no more 8-track player. So you find an MP3 version (or whatever). It's okay under fair use to have the ripped version since you paid for the material already (no different than dubbing your old LP to cassette, and long settled in the courtroom).
For all the supposed losses, I sincerely wonder how many of those files really would have been 'new sales'. If they have ripped their own libraries. It has been pointed out several times that the deteriorating profits by the music industry have been because everybody has completed the conversion of their old libraries to CD. The RIAA has resorted to terrorism, universities to censorship, and the lawmakers to presumption of guilt.
The Internet exists for the users and it suffers from the tragedy of the commons. But so do public highways, and so what's next? Prohibit cars with MP3 players on the basis of transporting stolen property?
@Home did not fail due to user bandwidth demands per se. It failed because of a flawed business model quite apart from usage rates. No cable company, once they collectively learned how to operate the infrastructure would continue to pay such a premium for what amounted in the end to very little value-add. Likewise, HSA, a second- and third-tier supplier (read:Charter Communications) also cratered for the same reason.
A obvious statement to those who know what patents are, BUT tons of executives and coders alike that I have come to know in the business world do not understand what patents actually are: they are published recipes on how to make something that is otherwise non-obvious and novel. In exchange for the disclosure the patenting authority gives the assignee the right to say who can reproduce the invention for commercial use within the applicable jurisdiction and for how much, which can be anyone and for zero money or anything else for that matter. There is absolutely ZERO requirement to charge for its use.
For all those opposed to patent royalties, which I see as the real issue, let them innovate, invent, perfect, and disclose first -- and prove it was first -- by the patent process itself. This is the most effective bulwark to corporate patent-maniacs abusing the process to set up "toll roads" through dodgy disclosures and clever lawyers. Fight fire with fire, beat them at their own game. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Patents are a proven effective way to teach valuable technology and give the assignee full control over their invention. This is much better than the alternative, secrecy, which is what the source article railed against. And NEVER NEVER sign 'intellectual slavery' clauses that pre-assign rights to inventions just for a job.
The point is that NDA's are necessary, not because patents are evil, but because people -- especially those chanting platitudes like "it's just business" -- usually have evil intent.
And, I've never met a VC -- and I've met a lot -- that should be trusted.
There is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with patents. If you can deal with the patent office yourself, patents are even reasonably cheap to prosecute (though I know of no seasoned inventor who would do so more than once). Once patented, one can offer licenses free of charge by creating a simple irrevocable trust whose sole asset is the patent and whose articles prevent royalties from ever being charged.
Of course, if you're feeling frisky, you could make an exception to the always-royalty-free requirment and mandate that Micro$oft, Gates, and SCO and Darl[ing] McBride to pay through the nose and donate the proceeds to the open source community.
Patents are public disclosures. Having an NDA to discuss a patent is an oxymoron.
However, if the patent is still pending, an NDA is necessary to assign responsibility in case of a public disclosure. IANAL but as far as I know, once publically disclosed -- intentionally or otherwise -- renders the invention unpatentable. The NDA can even things up financially, but it would be difficult to prove damages. Some VC's would disclose knowing that damages are difficult to assess and collect but disclosing might keep a prior investment of theirs healthy if your invention poses a threat if patented. They also might try to reword it and race you to the courthouse steps.
I would never disclose a patent in a talk with money without having them invest first or have them post a huge bond. VC's are notorious for having their own portfolio companies -- in many cases your competitors -- review your documents. If they are serious about your plan, they will invest in your plan and stipulate that your patent represents at least a sustainable competitive advantage. In that case they won't need to see it. If they don't like the notion of an NDA it's because they simply are doing competitive analyses for their portfolio companies under false pretenses.
Of course, one could take advantage of the source-post's anecdote about printing the NDA on the back of the badge then saving each badge for fingerprint ID (the fingerprinting bit is my idea -- consider it publicly disclosed;) What a perfectly poetic sidestep.
There is never a shortage of reasons to "go along to get along." I think Stanley Milgram proved this quite handily with the experiment 'obedience and personal responsibility'. Most people, regardless of intellect or education will act cowardly if it provides them selfish advantage or preserves their position in the status quo.
We need more selfless personal courage in the world.
Software is the final customization to hardware. Software patents should only apply to the EXACT machine described in the disclosure and to a very specific machine code listing and memory mapping. Software copyrights should not cover high-level language snippets that are standard constructs. Of course it is not accepted that a sentence or a paragraph or a page in a novel that exactly matches another's copyrighted material constitutes copyright infringment. Likewise, it should be disallowed to argue that even 10 lines in a 12 line construct exactly matching constitues plagiarism -- comments included.
If this were applied to the SCO claims, the SCO suit would fall apart in no time.
I think 8-Track tapes were a continuously looping design. That's it -- we'll just make those silly black boxes play classic Grand Funk Railroad tunes while the airbag is deploying. Breathalyze that.
I believe that ACK response is 10mS (SIFS) which means the farthest compliant link is about 2km. Even if one uses 50mS DIFS, the maximum link distance is 10km. Beyond this the interframe space values must be tweaked and thus is not Wi-Fi compliant.
If we're not talking Wi-Fi specifically, than satellites do 23,000 miles with similar power bandwidth ratios...
This technique has been used succesfully to transmit data over short distances for quite some time. Some technologies used by the RFID world use a modulated magnetic field rather than a modulated electric field (inductive vs capacitive) coupling. The magnetic field can be used as a power source to the remote device ands hence can be directly embedded into live animals for tracking and identification without the need for a an embedded power source. I believe California has adopted this as a means of identifying domestic animals. But the technology has been used commercially, that I know of, for at least 20 years.
I don't believe that the magnetic fields would need to be so strong that they would cause a problem for magnetic media, but there are probably too many variables to generalize. Think "speakers" here. These generally use magentic coupling too to send information wirelessly (albeit at acoustic frequencies).
Interesting thoughts. Although this points out one of the original issues with the "solar system fossils."
I direct you for a third time to the bony skeletons of marine mammals. Let us consider the explaination for this under three different hypotheses:
Biblical Creation: God made them that way.
Joe-The-Giant-Turtle: Joe barfed them that way.
Evolution: The distant ancestors of these creatures lived on land, and thus needed rigid skeletons.
I think your comparison breaks down under logic and reason. Here's a slight re-wording:
Why do mobile computers have their own display screens?
Intelligent Creation: Engineers made them that way according to the present need.
Joe-The-Giant-Turtle: Joe barfed them that way.
Evolution: The distant ancestors of these computers were located near CRT's, and thus did not need displays. The mobile ones realized they would become extinct without integrated displays, and so they were filtered, not by random chance but by natural selection.
Now, before you scoff, give this some thought. The planet earth and all its living things are profoundly interdependent, and operate in perfect balance if left alone. We see this all the time, and is why man has decided to leave parts of the earth, large parts, operating without their intervention. This equilibrium is hard to account for in evolution, especially if one must reconcile it with all the other elemental sub-theories of evolution. For a tree to "evolve" because it senses the need for less carbon dioxide and more oxygen for all the other living things is certainly no easier to imagine than the desktop/laptop scenario above. When applied to anything other than life, evolution sounds nonsensical, even to evolutionists.
I do disagree that various creationism accounts are not theories. Some have been disproved, others lack enough detail to bring them beyond hypothesis stage. But, speaking of what I know well, the Bible's account is in general agreement with the archaeological evidence, enough that, as a historical record, it is considered to be among the best. As for the general discussion of creation, it too survives scrutiny of truly unbiased reviewers. The Bible correctly detailed for example, that the earth is a sphere and is suspended in space, many centuries before it was "discovered" by science.
But to be a valid theory, it must predict something that can be proved in the future. Evolution predicts that species change from one to another based on random changes filtered by a deterministic process (natural selection). The argument that evolution is "unprovable" because of the timespans involved, and thus self-evidenct is a nonsequitur. Now, archaeological evidence is that new species explode onto the scene over relative short periods of time, and then stabilize for a [relatively] long period of time, likely because of abrupt environmental changes -- "puntuated equilibrium." So, it predicts that we should see a sudden explosion of new species at some point. Okay, simple enough, let's test it (Scientific Method). Bio-dome an ecosystem and then change the environment: heat, light, soil composition, basic mixtures of chemicals and compunds in the general non-living environment. Good, now let's go and see all the new species. If, alas, there are none, then I would submit prima facie that the theory is horked, back to the hypothesis stage.
Creation -- in particular, the Bible's creation account -- details enough about creation to establish this point: it is the work of an intelligent creator, who chooses to be called [literally] "He Causes to Become." The account provides much more detail about man's fall from perfection than creation's howto's, and then makes bold predictions on what the outcome will be. All this is contained in the first three chapters of the Genesis account. At some point, creation theory, as proposed in the pages of the Bible predict the rebuilding of human society under a government run, not
Well, I agree whole-heartedly with your view that neither evolution nor creation is yet proved, according to the Scientific Method, athough there are some isolated proofs for each. I assert that, for example, that when archaeologists find cave paintings of a horses, or find a stone arrowhead, they argue it is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life. Thus, if a painting of a horse is proof of intelligent life, then what of horse itself? I realize that you do not accept this logical conclusion.
Evolution predicts that there will be common DNA (and other biological) constructs present in organisms across specie boundaries, an assertion which has been confirmed. But, the game isn't over yet. Consider this example: common programming code appears in Linux, Unix, BSD and even Windoze. While it could mean that a Solaris box evolved into a BSD box all on its own according to the precepts of natural selection, it [far more than] probably didn't. SCO argues correctly that at some point this commonality is beyond coincidence (purposefully done vs by pure happenstance). Thus, when we try to resolve how the windoze box changed to a Linux box, we look for an intelligent life cause; it is not heralded as undeniable, or even probable, proof of natural selection and Darwinian evolution.
This real-life example, which we all reject as evidence for Darwinian evolution, is rather better seen as evidence that the re-use of complex components is most likely the result of intelligent design, and not of random input filtered by some theoretical version of the Darwinian evolutionary process. The simple fact is that nothing -- outside of life and living organisms, which are by far the most complex, intertwined interdependent system we know of -- that exists for a specific purpose is credited with coming into existence on its own by evolutionists and aboigenetisists.
It's understandable why the general case opinions are thusly biased, to some extent. Peer pressure, pressure and bias from the educational system, why, even our everyday language reinforces this learned predisposition towards evolution. We commonly speak of computer programs evolving -- an improper use of the concept, as they are not synonomous in this application. Computer programs are refined, changed, re-purposed, but none of them do so as a product of natural selection. They do so as a result of artifical selection and intelligent design, which is not "evolution" at all, most certainly not in the sense we have been discussing here.
As for the rocks from St Helens, they are not dated using C14 methods. C14 works better with things that were at one time alive, but granted, the general idea is the same. Most of the errors come from the assumptions of how the tested-for compounds came to be in the sample, and also what the specific environmental concentrations were at that time (it is not constant) and a host of other details that must be assumed. The values that get assumed are influenced, of course, by preconceived notions. As for a thorough, bibliographied work on K-Ar dating methods, and the idea of "excess argon", please see http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm It is a nice collection of fully accredited, contemporary (most 1990's+) resources. The upshot is that the dating model makes assumptions -- used all the time -- that are known faulty. 10 year old rock from St Helens tested to between 350,000 and 2.8 million years old. This fault has been demostrated time and again with known geologic samples from around the world with various known-by-direct-observation ages. C14 dating has similar flaws, but it is rather easier to know when a volcano last erupted then when a bone in a found in dirt mound stopped living. It is certainly not helped when the C14 assumptions are harmonized to [known-faulty] geologic dating methods.
That does not mean to say that all creation accounts are correct. All but the Bible's (that I am aware of) are written independent of time and provide no facts
Neither have you submitted one shred of evidence that evolution has been proved. You missed the point of the flies experiment -- they were still flies. Evolution must prove jumps across specie boundaries.
I do not believe that there are modern human skeletal remains over 6,000 years. Of course you will cite radiocarbon dating and other mechanisims but there are tons of data that prove radiocarbon dating over about 2,000 years gets pretty unreliable. Some recent examples have shown how comically flawed these methods can be. Like the rocks created in the Mount St Helens eruption that dated back a few millenia, and the mammoth carcass whose truck dated a few dozed thousand years different from its rump. There are a great deal of cautions and concerns about radiometric dating methods and practices, and it is well covered in the mainstream literature, that is what can go wrong and what does go wrong. For the record, I don't expect that you will consider any opinion against your own as valid.
I figured you would mock the watch analogy, people always do, because it so obviously points out the falicy of evolution. No one thinks a stone arrowhead could "evolve" into existence, but the living organism that made the arrowhead, well, no problem there.
And I did read your post, thought you made some good points, but disagreed on others.
Evolution is Religion. You have supplied no proof that one species has ever been demonstrated to turn into another. Showing bones from two different species and saying one turned into another is a theory that requires proof. Not only do you need the two bones, but you have to demonstrate the source species and the destination species, or prove that species boundaries can be crossed by today's livig organisims. Starting with a fly and ending with a fly has not shown that (and I challenge the notion that the genome changes in your cited experiment to the point where it is a new species. Please supply your reference).
As for the prior issues you had with Genesis, it seems that I proved my case, because you've moved on. So I'll handle the latest one here:
Gen 2:7-22 details the creation of the first man, the creation of the first woman, the creating for man the garden paradise ("Eden"), and also talks how God led the animals to the man for the purpose of having the man name them. It mentions that God made the animals formed 'out of the ground' but doesn't say that they were created at that instant in time -- it is silent at that point on "when". No conflict there...
Anfd the thing about predictions, well, of course they're in the future. And there are many proofs in the Bible of past predictions that came true right on schedule. I think that you will remain unconvinced, but for completeness sake, consider the prophecies in Daniel or Isaiah for starters. Daniel might be easier; it is more specific and more detailed, shouldn't be too tough to understand. Especially the progression of the world powers or the 70 weeks of years (which had to do with the time the Messiah would appear and other details of his ministry.
If both evolution and creation are theories, why teach either one to children? Or why not teach both? I have no particular problem with that. Only the really weak position would argue against hearing alternatives...
> had internal inconsistencies, preposterous claims, and suffered from a lack of testability
This statement applies exceptionally well to evolution. You have supplied no verifiable proof on evolution of converting one species to another viable species, and without it, your belief is based upon faith. Plain and simple. This is what this discussion is about.
Preposterous claims? How about saying a some kind of fish no one has ever seen turned into a bird millions of years ago, and that's why we have cats and dogs today? Never seen any of that happen (natural selection) nor anyone do it by artifical means (artificial selection). Neither has anyone else -- unless you are ready to supply proof, which would be refreshing, to say the least. In short, there is no verifiable proof that one species has turned into another, and ergo, it is a theory, not a fact, no better and no worse that the creation theory. I'd say that until someone proves it, organisims crossing species boundaries is a pretty preposterous claim.
Internal consistencies? Where can I read the complete theory of evolution from start to finish that is cohesive, coherent and universally agreed to by all adherents to the theory of evolution? Outside of the word "evolution" itself, I haven't found anything that evolutionists agree on -- even creation. I have had it made abundantly clear to me that abiogenesis is independent from evolution. So some evolutionists believe in creation while others believe in abiogenisis. In short, it is rife with "internal consistencies."
Clearly, the easiest way to prove that evolution is internally inconsistent, beyond all doubt, is that Behe is an evolutionist, and you think he's an idiot and think his ideas on evolution are crazy. Under the scientific method his theories deserve the chance to be worked on and improved in an unbiased manner until they are proved or disproved. That is the Scientific Method. But what is your stace? To believe he got a few details wrong just assisinate his character and throw his work out. My guess is you yourself have never had the kind of intellectual horsepower, nevermind the courage to say anything beyond what is popular or in the mainstream. For that alone I think Behe desrves acclaim.
As for DNA-protein-DNA paradox, it really comes down to starting with raw chemicals and and starting from an initial condition defined by evolutionary theory, creating strands of viable DNA -- that is DNA that results in a living thing that can survive in the environment (of your choosing). Do that, and you will have proved what Hitching said is incorrect. Oops forgot -- YOU don't need proof.
This does propose an interesting defense in legal situations though. Think of it: When police find DNA at the crime scene, one could argue that it was "evolution" at work and the DNA simply "evolved" from random chemicals and protein fragments into the alleged perpetrator's DNA. Case dismissed. Can this be supported? Yes, because according to the experts DNA can spontaneously apper -- it is "evolution fact"! I guess prosecutors could use it the concept too: Even though DNA at the scene doesn't match the suspect's, they could always argue it evolved already, to ensure survival of the source organism, "but trust me, because evolution is a fact and thus DNA spontaneously changes, at one time it really did match, I'm sure of it. Trust me. I've even read/. where proof of this sort of thing is not necessary anyway."
At the very least, then we cannot be sure how DNA came to be at any one location, who or what it came from, if it came anything at all.
So, once again, simply submit experimental proof that one species can change into another without the benefit of arifical selection (lest you take the position of an intelligent creator in the experiment). Unless of course you're claiming the "it's believed by lots of people already so we don't have to supply proof" exemption to the Scientific Method.
Look, you cited Scientific American as a credible source too, I just pointed it out. When I use them as a reference they are a popular journal, irrespective of the writer of the piece being quoted or his credentials. When you use them as a reference it's because they are a world-class scientific institution. Make up your mind.
Hitching? Who cares what you think of his scientific credentials? What he said was interesting on its own merit and worthy of consideration. He's not my hero either. Hoyle believed the bumble bees were the perfect interplanetary panspermia transport vehicle (or some such nonsense). He was clearly an evolutionist, and a certainly a world renowned scientist, a guy you should love. Does that mean that everything he said was worthless or to be dismissed as wrong? or right? No one seems to think so, except for you when his ideas disagree with you. What a person says stands on its own merit. Only people with the weakest of arguments ever look beyond the merit of a position for who said it as the principle basis for rejecting it.
What about Dawkins? What a dork. Get this (from the Blind Watchmaker):
How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints...(It) doesn't matter how small and unwinglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight the improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favor slight, prototype wingflaps. When these flaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings.
So let's get this right, if I take a bunch of frogs and drop them from high hieghts that don't quite kill them I eventually get a changed genome and frogs are now birds? And you think Hitching is a whacko?
And what about Behe? He's an evolutionist. He's just another guy you seem to think is an idiot because he differs on how evolution works from the way you do. Send me the reference where his theory on IC have been specifically disproven by experimentation. Besides, for someone who says that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, you are sure getting hung up on an author whose work basically says life from non-life is impossible. Behe, after all, claims to be an evolutionist.
One thing is absolutely inescapable: You simply cannot present a cogent incontrovertible proof that evolution is a fact. You simply keep droning on about how you don't need to because everyone that disagrees with you is a boob. Such a simple-minded cheezemo usenet bully-the-correspondent tactic will not work here. Not with me. And for a person who writes so emphatically against "dogma" you sure have a notable disrespect for the Scientific Method, especially the independent verification through experimentation part. Which, by the way, is the part that is widely regarded as the part that protects science from dogma.
As for what I have read or not read, you have no clue. Pretending that you know simply points out that you will say anything to support your view which undermines your credibilty to below that of Hitching's. It is what you say that counts here. At least he researched Darwin before writing his book, and for a single sentence, you're spending way too much time on it. Thou dost protest too much. Saying you're right because Hitching is this, or Behe is that, or my favorite website says Hoyle g
Actually, I thought this was a nicely worded reply, I enjoyed your point of view. On most points we agree. There are a few that I think need some clarification. For the record, I didn't [mean] to say evolution was "wrong", although by now it is clear I am not a believer in its precepts and theories. What I am endeavoring to say is that it is still at best a theory, and according to the accepted process of Scientific Method, in that it has not been proved. Even in the replies to these posts on/. there is broad disagreement on what proof is and even whether it is actually needed at all. I challenge these assertions and am highlighting the inconsistencies. When challenged about what I beleive I have made the appropriate defenses, but I have specifically tried to not drag religion into this discussion.
> "...this experiment: Take a bunch of fruit flies...You will now have flies adapted to an entirely different temperature..."
I think key item here is that you started with fruit flies and ended with fruit flies. I believe that evolution requires jumps across the Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus boundaries for proof that it is correct. I also suspect there was no change to the genetic code of the flies either, also a key requirement for proving evolution. For example, evolution attempts to explain how man and monkeys came from a common ancestor. If you took a fly and put it in a box and raised the temperature slowly to, say, 180F and they all lived and their genetic code changed so that the change was permanent and the latter were no longer able to breed with the former, then I think you'd have proof of evolution. Likewise, if you took the resulting flies from the experiment and reversed it, you'd have the original flies, which proves they never lost their original identity, and thus not proof of evolution.
This simple temperature experiment just happened in Europe this summer with humans. All sorts of people in northern Europe faced record temperatures, and many died as a direct result of the heat, which was by no means anywhere close to even the typical temperatures in equatorial earth, where humans live quite nicely. The point is that they were still humans, they did not jump even sub-species boundaries, which is what is predicted by evolution. And there are plenty of French guys living in Thailand and plenty of Thai guys living in France, who prefer the climates in their new homes over their native lands. Doesn't prove evolution.
Another key misconception in your post was the part about cross-breeding. What you discuss is straining a species for particular variations within that species, which is in no way whatsoever in conflict with creation theory or the Bible (which says that reproduction according to kind -- which means species -- is permitted, along with normal variations. The line is drawn at the specie boundary, which is why evolution must prove it can cross specie lines.). The point is when you allow only mild-tempered dogs to breed, you generally end up with mild-tempered dogs. No crossing of specie boundaries, they are still dogs, free to breed with anything else called a dog. When you cross a Husky with a Wolfhound, you still have a dog. This is not proof of evolution. Breed a fish with a money and come out with a bird, well, now you're talking evolution. Dropping cats from tall buildings until they realize they need to fly and sprout wings, and they change their genetic code so that that happens -- evolution. Simply holding up a bird and a cat and saying, "See some ancient living thing that we've never seen, nor can prove the existence of, long ago realized we needed something to eat mice and something else to eat worms and fly, and so here we have them, millions of years later. I proved evolution," is not really proof at all, it's simply conjecture.
> Evolution does not require faith. Faith is beleiving something even when you don't have evidence. Evolution has huge heaping moun
Well, I just reviewed the site that takes up against Hoyle's statistics. Interesting stuff. I was immediately hit with the distinct impression that the author was intentionally making it more complicated than need be, with twisting references to other references. I seemed the main point was to wear me out before I got to the end so I would flat-out accept what he said. But, not so fast.
First, I desperately want to know the difference between a "modern protein" and an "ancient" one. After that, I'd like to understand the difference between the creationists' view of abiogenesis and that of a "true" abiogenesist. As far as I could tell, the site says [stupid, simple-minded] creationists misrepresent it as the tranformation of simple chemicals to bacteria. Then it points out that the "real" process starts with simple chemicals and ends up with a bacteria. Huh?
Okay, the author did add a bunch of intermediary chemical reaction steps, but that is extra detail, not difference. But it says that even the more detailed one is "simplified". So, if I were to make a site that added the details glossed over on this "reference" site, would the "reference" site become wrong and I would be the bigger expert? I dismissed this nonsense out of hand as a silly HTML trick designed to discredit something that is actually correct.
From what I can tell, the added detail serves as a basis for metabolising Hoyle's large number into smaller bits that can be considered reasonable (but these smaller bits are only supplied for the simplified model; we are left wondering what numbers have been omitted). And the author does that quite handily. But the odds of each step, however manageble by itself must be multiplied by the managable odds of all the other steps, even the ones he leaves out. I didn't see where he did that. By the author's reckoning, one can make all the biological precursors you need by the truckload in somewhere between week and a year.
Great, so now we've got truckloads of the stuff, statiscally speaking of course. And we're just a few weeks from the big bang. But are they all in the right place at the right time? How do they mix? And if we're making them at such a phenominal rate, why is the universe not one big vat of amino acids? Or entirely all one single bacterium type?
And then there is this: If it's all so simple, and it takes maybe a year or two to get it all done, and the initial conditions are known, why not just reproduce it in the lab and put the thing to rest already (like when the author flipped heads four times in a row in defiance of the great odds against)?
Clealry he cannot, nor can anyone else. And the best part of all: Having all the right ingredients does not bring a protein pile to life. The author is silent on this, even though the most gap-toothed corn-pone creationist could tell you that if it ain't alive, it ain't life from non-life, it's just a buncha goo. You get an "F".
So what about Hoyle's calculations? Were they wrong? The author never says that, he just says that he felt as though, in his opinion, that they showed the most extremely remote case. But I got the impression he didn't find a flaw in the answer itself. The author seemed to use exaggerated opposition as his literary device to show his disapproval for Hoyle's position. But that doesn't mean that Hoyle was wrong. Indeed, Hoyle's calculations say that we should essentially never see bacteria spontaneously create (on the earth, if memory serves) from raw chemicals. The rebuttal author says we should be producing all the precursors by the truckload, week after week, year after year, and for millions and millions of years. Great, so where is all this stuff? That it is not here proves the author's calculations are materially wrong (though correctly solved for the conditions given, just like Hoyle's). Was Hoyle wrong? Who knows, he said it would be impossible, and no one has ever proved it is possible, so it remians a valid theory in my bo
Your problem is you believe the theory of evolution deserves a special exception to the Scientific Method. I already posted what this is, and the fourth step in the process from hypothesis to fact must include independent verification by experimentation.
I don't know a single creationist that does not understand and accept the intuitive obviousness of variation within a species. We now know at least some of the mechanisms at work, but we don't know them all (with the possible exception of you, of course). And such variations are completely compatible with creation. In fact, varitions beyond specie boundaries and life from non-life are the only basic points in contention between evolutionists and creationists that I'm aware of. Which is why it is essential that evolutionists demonstrate these two elemens. Hence the focus on the fossil record and the hunt for the non-creation solution to the origin of life question. Abiogenesis, schmabiogenesis. Even the most anal of eveolutionary websites say this is some kind of purist i'm-more-correct-than-you-are smog that is meaningless now, because it is an ideological imperitive for evolutionists to prove life from non-life without the influence of an intelligent creator. But you knew that, didn't you.
Perhaps you can point me to the website that explains to me which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or did they both appear together? Was it male or female? Or did all three appear at once? Or maybe it was just the male and the female? Explain, please why sexual reproduction "evolved" in the first place? Or at least explain the environmental imperitive involved. Did a couple of chickens just say, "Hey, this cloning stuff is for the birds," and then dreamed it up? How did this work? Or was it the genome quietly working this out in secret and then it just sprung it on them? Was it earier in the evolutionary tree? If so, which was the species responsible, and why? How? Please, some answers, not some redirection as to why I am not qualified to ask.
For the record, the models for hurricanes and nuclear fission can be compared to the actual events, and routinely are. Measurements are made and compared with the model, which is then refined. Weather patterns are routinely used to predict hurricanes, and after-the-fact analyses are routinely run by researchers to refine the models even more. So you are unequivocally dead wrong when you say these theories are not verified experimentally. I know you're not very hot on proof -- we should all just take your word for it because, well, it's you -- BUT this little slip-up proves you know nothing of how science works. NASA's Ulysses space probe mean anything to you? NOAA's HRD program?
Why must you persist in name-calling of me and of world renowned scientists? Is your position that weak? Must be. If evolution has been proved, show me the proof. And that doesn't mean holding up a jaw bone and an inner ear bone proclaiming, See! This one turned into that one!
If panspermia was the way it all happened, show me the proof with the demonstrable linking model that goes all the way to modern man. If it was Punctuated Equilibrium, show me the model of the initial conditions and tell us when we can expect the next ocurrance. Imagine! Seeing a sudden explosion of thousands of new species onto the scene. Surely if you knew, you would tell us right? If gradual change slowly over time filtered by natural selection is the method, show me how to change a fish to a monkey, or a lion into a tiger or a monkey into a man. Then set up the initial conditions and get to it. If you need something with a shorter generational span and a simpler genome, use the humble Drosophila fly. Others have failed applying your "facts" but hey, you've got it sorted, so it should be a snap. Do something other than flap your mouth about it.
Hey, that's it, stand there and flap your lips until your genome gets the idea you'd be better off a bird. Then you can also prove the part about org
Wow, thou art a bit tetchy this fine morn. Art thou on thy female cycle?
The King James translation of Gen2:6 refers to a "mist" not a "stream". The Bible in Living English does likewise, as do the American Standard Version, the New World Translation and The Revised Standard Version. The paraphrased The Living Bible says water "welled up from the ground." I don't have a translation that says "stream" in these verses.
The seven creative days, in the sense they take on from Gen1:1 ends clearly with Gen2:3. The verses beginning with 2:6, there is a context switch to centering on the creation of the first man Adam. Here is made the reference to there being not yet any cultivating of the ground. All the translations that I have say 'bush of the field' and 'vegetation of the field' or similar, rather than saying all plants of all kinds. Rather, verse 5 specifically limits the statements about the plants being 'of the field'. This is said because there were no men to farm the land. So the context is clear that the plant life spoken of here refers to cultivated crops, not to the creation of "wild" plant life created on the third day (Gen1:11-13). It establishes, in effect, that the whose creation is about to be described is indeed the first man. It also sets that stage for the God's establishing ("planting") the first garden, Eden, for the man so he could learn from it and perpetuate it (Gen2:8).
That's all pretty straightforward. Gen2:4 seems to be a problem for you because of the use of 'creating of the heaven and earth' idea. Clearly, God couldn't make man before the literal universe and before turning the earth into a suitable, living planet. Even if the Bible were made up, even an moron wouldn't get that part wrong in the span of a few hundred words. So I think we can dismiss this level of disharmony out of hand. Nevertheless, let us see if there is a reasonable interpretation.
Throughout the Bible, the term "heaven" can mean several things, like most words we use today have several meanings. Specifically, "heaven" can mean God's place of dwelling, the physical universe observable by humans, the earth's atmosphere, and even a governmental organization over mankind, whether based in God's realm or here on the earth. Similarly, "earth" can mean the planet, the ground and even the human society that inhabits it.
The sense that the earth and the heavens mean social-structure sense seems to be born out by the rest of the context in Genesis, especially chapters 2-5. Here man is created and given instructions on what he is to do. He is later given a woman as a compliment and a helper and a companion. Then they rebel, declare independence and the founding of the imperfect word occurs.
This same sense of the heavens and the earth is used in Psalms, most of the Prophets, especially Isaiah, and continues (for Christians) throughout the gospels (lit. declarations of the good news), the letters, and the book of Revelation. (Ps2:1-12;Isa65:17,66:1;Mt11:11;2Pet3:13;Rev21:1)
It is interesting to note that in this regard, The Bible in Living English translators chose to render "heaven" and "earth" as "sky" and "earth" and then uses that to create the proper backdrop to the act of creating Adam. Here is the way it renders Gen2:5-7:
"On the day that God Jehovah made earth and sky, when there was not yet in the earth any field bush, or any field herbage sprung up, becauseGod Jehovah had not made it rain on the earth and there were no men to work the soil, and a mist used to come up out of the earth and water all the surface of the soil, God Jehovah shaped man in clay from the soil, and blew into his nostrils breath of life, and the man became a living person."
Here the idea is that it is referring to immediate physical earth and sky that the man Adam was born into, rather than the sense of stricter translations, which make reference to the generational history (See KVJ, AS, RS, NWT). Either way, it is clear that even allo
> the problem is that things get tricky when working on the timescale of evolutionary theory.
I see your point, but there have been attempts to speed things up. There have been experiments with millions and millions of Drosophila flies (and other things with short generational timespans) that used radiation to scramble DNA, among other things. It was found time and again the mutations produced nothing new, no new advantages, and certianly nothing that lasted for more than a few generations. Of course, one argument is the combination of these things leads to useful new creatures. So, what was the result of a few generations of breeding? Normal, original fruit flies were hatched. This led to some interesting discoveries, like DNA repair systems. Either DNA gets fixed (returned to its original state) or cancer results or other disease or malformations occur. DNA is now generally regarded as a great stabilizer, not the other way around. Using animals whose generational timelines are compressed relative to our own in effect compresses time.
There is also the theory regarding punctuated equilibrium. The observation in nature is the sudden appearance of great numbers of new species and then a period of great stability, which repeated every so often. This theory was advanced to explain it. Add to that the fact that no gradual shift could be proven in the fossil record ("links" were separated by millions of years in most cases, and millions of miles too, and a real lack of numbers and complete skeletons is also a problem). And radiocarbon dating is also known to be unreliable beyond about 2,000 years which adds to the problem of establishing timelines. So, evolutionists advanced this thoery to explain it. Something in nature, governed by random chance, creates a new species explosion every so often. So we should see it at some point, or be able to set the establish the initial conditions and cause a new explosion in new species. But it hasn't happened, either by chance or on purpose. The only logical conclusion is that at best we have no idea how evolution happens (and hence we have only hypotheses or theories, not fact), or at worst, the evolution theorists just plain got it wrong, there's no such thing.
No one has ever tried to prove creationism directly that I know of, probably because of the intuitive obviousness of why it wouldn't work. Ironically, the failures of the various evolution experiments haven't undermined creation's theoretical predictions. Rather creation theory has been supported by deduction: Even with the combined intelligence of our brightest and most focused minds working on this for a hundred years or so, no one has changed one species to another, new or previously seen, nor have they been able to reproduce even the smallest and simplest elements in the theory (e.g. Miller). Time adds to the emergence of new and competing theories on the details, most of which can't be reconciled into a coherent singular whole. Creationism holds that an intelligence, far greater than our own, made all this, and that it did not happen by random pointless chance, but rather for a reason. The entire "intelligence greater than our own" part makes it obvious that we won't be able to duplicate it, which thus far has been the case. Some say this is a convenient excuse, but certainly no more convenient than the "it takes way too long" defense of evolutionists.
> As you said, Stanley Miller FAILED at his attempt to create life. If he indeed played the role of creator and failed to create, didn't he just as equally work toward a disproof of creationist theory?
Ah, yes, Miller's failures. Miller failed to create proteins because his theory was wrong, and in the end couldn't be used as part of the greater evolution theory. But Miller is not God, nor did he possess the intelligence of a god. He was just a man, thus restricted to failure in trying to become one. But the point is that he was needed to stage the events, carefully guiding the ex
Nicely written post, but I'm not following...first you say that my reference to Scientific American is invalid because it's not a proper scientific journal, but then you list it in your who's who supporting your favorite self-reinforcing website. Either it is or is not a credible source. Make up your mind.
Evolution is a religion -- a philosophy -- in many key areas. For starters, it requires the faith of its adherents because it has not been proven experimentally. I have yet to see the published results of where one species was observed changing into another and it could be completely explained and reproduced. Holding up two bones and saying this one turned into that one just doesn't cut it. Evolution predicts smooth transistions from one species to another, but the fossil record fails to bear it out. So what do we do? Create a theory of punctuated equilibrium to address the sudden emergence of new and different living things. So, when, exactly, based on the current theory should we expect the next wave of new species as predicted by Punctuated Equilibrium? What, not sure? Doesn't actually say? Sorry, not taking anyone's word on it. If you know how it happened, into the lab and prove it. Otherwise you're not complying with true scientific method and it remains merely a hypothesis.
Galileo fought populists that drew their political power from the religion-backed power structure. They were not defending any religious truth, they were merely endeavoring to not upset the status quo, because it would undermine their power base. It is obvious they had no concerns over scriptural truths, they just wanted to remain in political power. But Galileo proved what he said through experimentation, which is more, a lot more, than can be said about evolutionists. Evolutionists insist we take their word for it and accept evolution theory as fact without proof through experimentation. That makes evolutionists the same as Galileo's tormentors, and the opposite of Galileo himself.
If you are saying that you agree with Galileo, then you are saying that you will accept nothing as science fact until it is tested and successfully demonstrated experimentally. If so then evolution is no fact, it is merely an unproven theory like any other unproven theory. Now, if your beloved website calls evolution a scientific fact, it is incorrect, on the basis of scientific method. And you must accept that you are just like the religionists in Galileo's day, saying, "Don't experiment or show me the results. I already know the how it all works and I don't need experiments to prove it."
If life is not irreducibly complex, please bring me to the place where I can see amino acids form and enzymes and proteins and DNA and RNA and all the other components simultaneously create each other and then see the cells come to life. Then take me to the place where I can see Species A turn into Species B, or tell me when and where some new species will suddenly appear on earth so I can get a glimpse.
If you can't tell me these things, then please tell me who can. Otherwise, I'm stuck having to take your word for it. Trouble is, that's just not science.
Having read Miller's review of one of Behe's works, I am unmoved. Each has his own respectable credentials, his list of historical supporters or those on whose work they built. Miller says he agrees with Behe on lots of things. He just disagrees on other things. Miller's positions are equally untested by experimentation. And where Behe suggests that ideas that Miller endorses be tested, Miller turns it around and says that Behe's ideas should be tested first, and since that's not the way Behe presented it, he should be dismissed. Paley's work is 200 years old so it's old and dumb. Darwin's work on the the other hand is 150 years old, but not dumb? Either it's age is relevant or it's not. Miller is simply speaking out of both sides of his Ivy League mouth, saying that when Behe agrees with him he's a genius and when he disagrees he's an
The reason to care is that religion explains why things are, whereas science focuses on explaining how things work.
It is true that Darwin published Origin of Species to explain minor variations in groups of living things, hence the title Origin of Species. Otherwise he would have titled it Origin of Life or some such thing.
Scientific investigation subjects theories to stepwise refinement. As such, the basic theory of evolution is based on random chance that produces endless mutations which are culled through natural selection (aka, survival of the fittest). Therefore it is random chance rather than intelligent design that is responsible for all we know and see. Taken to its logical conclusion, even the transforming of non-living matter to living matter must have been the product of chance. This is why, in my view, all the texts on evolution either explicitly or implicitly include the notion of life evolving from non-life.
I have found a few references over the course of today that make a point to say that strictly evolution theory excludes abiogenesis, but even those references agree that the distiction is immaterial since all modern theories of evolution are based on life from non-life at some level.
This is copied directly from the University of Rochester's website regarding the scientific method:
"III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
"As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.
"Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.
Evolutionists continually dismiss out of hand evidence that suggests evolution is false or flawed. And they seem satisfied that its most basic tenets remain unproven by experimentation.
Moreover, saying that the route a nerve takes is evolutionary because it doesn't seem to be the shortest path is simply conjecture. To me it would make sense that an organ whose function is dependent on aspiration cycles would loop through the chest, if I were the engineer. But that's just conjecture too.
The simple truth is that without independent verification of the theory by experimentation, both abiogenesis and its codependent theories of evoltion are simply theories. From a scientific method perspective, it is on equal footing with the creation theory. Both require the faith of its adherents. Evolutionists don't tend to care about the "whay" part, and creationists are relatively unconcerned with the "how" part when discussing how the creator did all this -- for now. The material issue is "why" because it leads to an understanding of what happens next. That is what is important to the spiritually minded person.
Slashdot Mirror
Even sharing copyrighted material is not necessarily illegal. Let's say you have an old 8-track of the White Album, but alas, no more 8-track player. So you find an MP3 version (or whatever). It's okay under fair use to have the ripped version since you paid for the material already (no different than dubbing your old LP to cassette, and long settled in the courtroom).
For all the supposed losses, I sincerely wonder how many of those files really would have been 'new sales'. If they have ripped their own libraries. It has been pointed out several times that the deteriorating profits by the music industry have been because everybody has completed the conversion of their old libraries to CD. The RIAA has resorted to terrorism, universities to censorship, and the lawmakers to presumption of guilt.
The Internet exists for the users and it suffers from the tragedy of the commons. But so do public highways, and so what's next? Prohibit cars with MP3 players on the basis of transporting stolen property?
@Home did not fail due to user bandwidth demands per se. It failed because of a flawed business model quite apart from usage rates. No cable company, once they collectively learned how to operate the infrastructure would continue to pay such a premium for what amounted in the end to very little value-add. Likewise, HSA, a second- and third-tier supplier (read:Charter Communications) also cratered for the same reason.
I believe Charter bougfht the assets of HSA (High Speed Access, Littleton, CO) not @Home.
Problem is you're calculus is okay but your accounting skills are dodgy.
For all those opposed to patent royalties, which I see as the real issue, let them innovate, invent, perfect, and disclose first -- and prove it was first -- by the patent process itself. This is the most effective bulwark to corporate patent-maniacs abusing the process to set up "toll roads" through dodgy disclosures and clever lawyers. Fight fire with fire, beat them at their own game. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Patents are a proven effective way to teach valuable technology and give the assignee full control over their invention. This is much better than the alternative, secrecy, which is what the source article railed against. And NEVER NEVER sign 'intellectual slavery' clauses that pre-assign rights to inventions just for a job.
The point is that NDA's are necessary, not because patents are evil, but because people -- especially those chanting platitudes like "it's just business" -- usually have evil intent.
And, I've never met a VC -- and I've met a lot -- that should be trusted.
Of course, if you're feeling frisky, you could make an exception to the always-royalty-free requirment and mandate that Micro$oft, Gates, and SCO and Darl[ing] McBride to pay through the nose and donate the proceeds to the open source community.
However, if the patent is still pending, an NDA is necessary to assign responsibility in case of a public disclosure. IANAL but as far as I know, once publically disclosed -- intentionally or otherwise -- renders the invention unpatentable. The NDA can even things up financially, but it would be difficult to prove damages. Some VC's would disclose knowing that damages are difficult to assess and collect but disclosing might keep a prior investment of theirs healthy if your invention poses a threat if patented. They also might try to reword it and race you to the courthouse steps.
I would never disclose a patent in a talk with money without having them invest first or have them post a huge bond. VC's are notorious for having their own portfolio companies -- in many cases your competitors -- review your documents. If they are serious about your plan, they will invest in your plan and stipulate that your patent represents at least a sustainable competitive advantage. In that case they won't need to see it. If they don't like the notion of an NDA it's because they simply are doing competitive analyses for their portfolio companies under false pretenses.
Of course, one could take advantage of the source-post's anecdote about printing the NDA on the back of the badge then saving each badge for fingerprint ID (the fingerprinting bit is my idea -- consider it publicly disclosed ;) What a perfectly poetic sidestep.
We need more selfless personal courage in the world.
Software is the final customization to hardware. Software patents should only apply to the EXACT machine described in the disclosure and to a very specific machine code listing and memory mapping. Software copyrights should not cover high-level language snippets that are standard constructs. Of course it is not accepted that a sentence or a paragraph or a page in a novel that exactly matches another's copyrighted material constitutes copyright infringment. Likewise, it should be disallowed to argue that even 10 lines in a 12 line construct exactly matching constitues plagiarism -- comments included.
If this were applied to the SCO claims, the SCO suit would fall apart in no time.
I think 8-Track tapes were a continuously looping design. That's it -- we'll just make those silly black boxes play classic Grand Funk Railroad tunes while the airbag is deploying. Breathalyze that.
Yet another reason to hang on to my mid-sixties Ford
If we're not talking Wi-Fi specifically, than satellites do 23,000 miles with similar power bandwidth ratios...
I don't believe that the magnetic fields would need to be so strong that they would cause a problem for magnetic media, but there are probably too many variables to generalize. Think "speakers" here. These generally use magentic coupling too to send information wirelessly (albeit at acoustic frequencies).
I direct you for a third time to the bony skeletons of marine mammals. Let us consider the explaination for this under three different hypotheses:
Biblical Creation: God made them that way.
Joe-The-Giant-Turtle: Joe barfed them that way.
Evolution: The distant ancestors of these creatures lived on land, and thus needed rigid skeletons.
I think your comparison breaks down under logic and reason. Here's a slight re-wording: Why do mobile computers have their own display screens?
Intelligent Creation: Engineers made them that way according to the present need.
Joe-The-Giant-Turtle: Joe barfed them that way.
Evolution: The distant ancestors of these computers were located near CRT's, and thus did not need displays. The mobile ones realized they would become extinct without integrated displays, and so they were filtered, not by random chance but by natural selection.
Now, before you scoff, give this some thought. The planet earth and all its living things are profoundly interdependent, and operate in perfect balance if left alone. We see this all the time, and is why man has decided to leave parts of the earth, large parts, operating without their intervention. This equilibrium is hard to account for in evolution, especially if one must reconcile it with all the other elemental sub-theories of evolution. For a tree to "evolve" because it senses the need for less carbon dioxide and more oxygen for all the other living things is certainly no easier to imagine than the desktop/laptop scenario above. When applied to anything other than life, evolution sounds nonsensical, even to evolutionists.
I do disagree that various creationism accounts are not theories. Some have been disproved, others lack enough detail to bring them beyond hypothesis stage. But, speaking of what I know well, the Bible's account is in general agreement with the archaeological evidence, enough that, as a historical record, it is considered to be among the best. As for the general discussion of creation, it too survives scrutiny of truly unbiased reviewers. The Bible correctly detailed for example, that the earth is a sphere and is suspended in space, many centuries before it was "discovered" by science.
But to be a valid theory, it must predict something that can be proved in the future. Evolution predicts that species change from one to another based on random changes filtered by a deterministic process (natural selection). The argument that evolution is "unprovable" because of the timespans involved, and thus self-evidenct is a nonsequitur. Now, archaeological evidence is that new species explode onto the scene over relative short periods of time, and then stabilize for a [relatively] long period of time, likely because of abrupt environmental changes -- "puntuated equilibrium." So, it predicts that we should see a sudden explosion of new species at some point. Okay, simple enough, let's test it (Scientific Method). Bio-dome an ecosystem and then change the environment: heat, light, soil composition, basic mixtures of chemicals and compunds in the general non-living environment. Good, now let's go and see all the new species. If, alas, there are none, then I would submit prima facie that the theory is horked, back to the hypothesis stage.
Creation -- in particular, the Bible's creation account -- details enough about creation to establish this point: it is the work of an intelligent creator, who chooses to be called [literally] "He Causes to Become." The account provides much more detail about man's fall from perfection than creation's howto's, and then makes bold predictions on what the outcome will be. All this is contained in the first three chapters of the Genesis account. At some point, creation theory, as proposed in the pages of the Bible predict the rebuilding of human society under a government run, not
Evolution predicts that there will be common DNA (and other biological) constructs present in organisms across specie boundaries, an assertion which has been confirmed. But, the game isn't over yet. Consider this example: common programming code appears in Linux, Unix, BSD and even Windoze. While it could mean that a Solaris box evolved into a BSD box all on its own according to the precepts of natural selection, it [far more than] probably didn't. SCO argues correctly that at some point this commonality is beyond coincidence (purposefully done vs by pure happenstance). Thus, when we try to resolve how the windoze box changed to a Linux box, we look for an intelligent life cause; it is not heralded as undeniable, or even probable, proof of natural selection and Darwinian evolution.
This real-life example, which we all reject as evidence for Darwinian evolution, is rather better seen as evidence that the re-use of complex components is most likely the result of intelligent design, and not of random input filtered by some theoretical version of the Darwinian evolutionary process. The simple fact is that nothing -- outside of life and living organisms, which are by far the most complex, intertwined interdependent system we know of -- that exists for a specific purpose is credited with coming into existence on its own by evolutionists and aboigenetisists.
It's understandable why the general case opinions are thusly biased, to some extent. Peer pressure, pressure and bias from the educational system, why, even our everyday language reinforces this learned predisposition towards evolution. We commonly speak of computer programs evolving -- an improper use of the concept, as they are not synonomous in this application. Computer programs are refined, changed, re-purposed, but none of them do so as a product of natural selection. They do so as a result of artifical selection and intelligent design, which is not "evolution" at all, most certainly not in the sense we have been discussing here.
As for the rocks from St Helens, they are not dated using C14 methods. C14 works better with things that were at one time alive, but granted, the general idea is the same. Most of the errors come from the assumptions of how the tested-for compounds came to be in the sample, and also what the specific environmental concentrations were at that time (it is not constant) and a host of other details that must be assumed. The values that get assumed are influenced, of course, by preconceived notions. As for a thorough, bibliographied work on K-Ar dating methods, and the idea of "excess argon", please see http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm It is a nice collection of fully accredited, contemporary (most 1990's+) resources. The upshot is that the dating model makes assumptions -- used all the time -- that are known faulty. 10 year old rock from St Helens tested to between 350,000 and 2.8 million years old. This fault has been demostrated time and again with known geologic samples from around the world with various known-by-direct-observation ages. C14 dating has similar flaws, but it is rather easier to know when a volcano last erupted then when a bone in a found in dirt mound stopped living. It is certainly not helped when the C14 assumptions are harmonized to [known-faulty] geologic dating methods.
That does not mean to say that all creation accounts are correct. All but the Bible's (that I am aware of) are written independent of time and provide no facts
I do not believe that there are modern human skeletal remains over 6,000 years. Of course you will cite radiocarbon dating and other mechanisims but there are tons of data that prove radiocarbon dating over about 2,000 years gets pretty unreliable. Some recent examples have shown how comically flawed these methods can be. Like the rocks created in the Mount St Helens eruption that dated back a few millenia, and the mammoth carcass whose truck dated a few dozed thousand years different from its rump. There are a great deal of cautions and concerns about radiometric dating methods and practices, and it is well covered in the mainstream literature, that is what can go wrong and what does go wrong. For the record, I don't expect that you will consider any opinion against your own as valid.
I figured you would mock the watch analogy, people always do, because it so obviously points out the falicy of evolution. No one thinks a stone arrowhead could "evolve" into existence, but the living organism that made the arrowhead, well, no problem there.
And I did read your post, thought you made some good points, but disagreed on others.
Evolution is Religion. You have supplied no proof that one species has ever been demonstrated to turn into another. Showing bones from two different species and saying one turned into another is a theory that requires proof. Not only do you need the two bones, but you have to demonstrate the source species and the destination species, or prove that species boundaries can be crossed by today's livig organisims. Starting with a fly and ending with a fly has not shown that (and I challenge the notion that the genome changes in your cited experiment to the point where it is a new species. Please supply your reference).
As for the prior issues you had with Genesis, it seems that I proved my case, because you've moved on. So I'll handle the latest one here:
Gen 2:7-22 details the creation of the first man, the creation of the first woman, the creating for man the garden paradise ("Eden"), and also talks how God led the animals to the man for the purpose of having the man name them. It mentions that God made the animals formed 'out of the ground' but doesn't say that they were created at that instant in time -- it is silent at that point on "when". No conflict there...
Anfd the thing about predictions, well, of course they're in the future. And there are many proofs in the Bible of past predictions that came true right on schedule. I think that you will remain unconvinced, but for completeness sake, consider the prophecies in Daniel or Isaiah for starters. Daniel might be easier; it is more specific and more detailed, shouldn't be too tough to understand. Especially the progression of the world powers or the 70 weeks of years (which had to do with the time the Messiah would appear and other details of his ministry.
If both evolution and creation are theories, why teach either one to children? Or why not teach both? I have no particular problem with that. Only the really weak position would argue against hearing alternatives...
This statement applies exceptionally well to evolution. You have supplied no verifiable proof on evolution of converting one species to another viable species, and without it, your belief is based upon faith. Plain and simple. This is what this discussion is about.
Preposterous claims? How about saying a some kind of fish no one has ever seen turned into a bird millions of years ago, and that's why we have cats and dogs today? Never seen any of that happen (natural selection) nor anyone do it by artifical means (artificial selection). Neither has anyone else -- unless you are ready to supply proof, which would be refreshing, to say the least. In short, there is no verifiable proof that one species has turned into another, and ergo, it is a theory, not a fact, no better and no worse that the creation theory. I'd say that until someone proves it, organisims crossing species boundaries is a pretty preposterous claim.
Internal consistencies? Where can I read the complete theory of evolution from start to finish that is cohesive, coherent and universally agreed to by all adherents to the theory of evolution? Outside of the word "evolution" itself, I haven't found anything that evolutionists agree on -- even creation. I have had it made abundantly clear to me that abiogenesis is independent from evolution. So some evolutionists believe in creation while others believe in abiogenisis. In short, it is rife with "internal consistencies."
Clearly, the easiest way to prove that evolution is internally inconsistent, beyond all doubt, is that Behe is an evolutionist, and you think he's an idiot and think his ideas on evolution are crazy. Under the scientific method his theories deserve the chance to be worked on and improved in an unbiased manner until they are proved or disproved. That is the Scientific Method. But what is your stace? To believe he got a few details wrong just assisinate his character and throw his work out. My guess is you yourself have never had the kind of intellectual horsepower, nevermind the courage to say anything beyond what is popular or in the mainstream. For that alone I think Behe desrves acclaim.
As for DNA-protein-DNA paradox, it really comes down to starting with raw chemicals and and starting from an initial condition defined by evolutionary theory, creating strands of viable DNA -- that is DNA that results in a living thing that can survive in the environment (of your choosing). Do that, and you will have proved what Hitching said is incorrect. Oops forgot -- YOU don't need proof.
This does propose an interesting defense in legal situations though. Think of it: When police find DNA at the crime scene, one could argue that it was "evolution" at work and the DNA simply "evolved" from random chemicals and protein fragments into the alleged perpetrator's DNA. Case dismissed. Can this be supported? Yes, because according to the experts DNA can spontaneously apper -- it is "evolution fact"! I guess prosecutors could use it the concept too: Even though DNA at the scene doesn't match the suspect's, they could always argue it evolved already, to ensure survival of the source organism, "but trust me, because evolution is a fact and thus DNA spontaneously changes, at one time it really did match, I'm sure of it. Trust me. I've even read /. where proof of this sort of thing is not necessary anyway."
At the very least, then we cannot be sure how DNA came to be at any one location, who or what it came from, if it came anything at all.
So, once again, simply submit experimental proof that one species can change into another without the benefit of arifical selection (lest you take the position of an intelligent creator in the experiment). Unless of course you're claiming the "it's believed by lots of people already so we don't have to supply proof" exemption to the Scientific Method.
Hitching? Who cares what you think of his scientific credentials? What he said was interesting on its own merit and worthy of consideration. He's not my hero either. Hoyle believed the bumble bees were the perfect interplanetary panspermia transport vehicle (or some such nonsense). He was clearly an evolutionist, and a certainly a world renowned scientist, a guy you should love. Does that mean that everything he said was worthless or to be dismissed as wrong? or right? No one seems to think so, except for you when his ideas disagree with you. What a person says stands on its own merit. Only people with the weakest of arguments ever look beyond the merit of a position for who said it as the principle basis for rejecting it.
What about Dawkins? What a dork. Get this (from the Blind Watchmaker):
How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints...(It) doesn't matter how small and unwinglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight the improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favor slight, prototype wingflaps. When these flaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings.
So let's get this right, if I take a bunch of frogs and drop them from high hieghts that don't quite kill them I eventually get a changed genome and frogs are now birds? And you think Hitching is a whacko?
And what about Behe? He's an evolutionist. He's just another guy you seem to think is an idiot because he differs on how evolution works from the way you do. Send me the reference where his theory on IC have been specifically disproven by experimentation. Besides, for someone who says that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, you are sure getting hung up on an author whose work basically says life from non-life is impossible. Behe, after all, claims to be an evolutionist.
One thing is absolutely inescapable: You simply cannot present a cogent incontrovertible proof that evolution is a fact. You simply keep droning on about how you don't need to because everyone that disagrees with you is a boob. Such a simple-minded cheezemo usenet bully-the-correspondent tactic will not work here. Not with me. And for a person who writes so emphatically against "dogma" you sure have a notable disrespect for the Scientific Method, especially the independent verification through experimentation part. Which, by the way, is the part that is widely regarded as the part that protects science from dogma.
As for what I have read or not read, you have no clue. Pretending that you know simply points out that you will say anything to support your view which undermines your credibilty to below that of Hitching's. It is what you say that counts here. At least he researched Darwin before writing his book, and for a single sentence, you're spending way too much time on it. Thou dost protest too much. Saying you're right because Hitching is this, or Behe is that, or my favorite website says Hoyle g
> "...this experiment: Take a bunch of fruit flies...You will now have flies adapted to an entirely different temperature..."
I think key item here is that you started with fruit flies and ended with fruit flies. I believe that evolution requires jumps across the Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus boundaries for proof that it is correct. I also suspect there was no change to the genetic code of the flies either, also a key requirement for proving evolution. For example, evolution attempts to explain how man and monkeys came from a common ancestor. If you took a fly and put it in a box and raised the temperature slowly to, say, 180F and they all lived and their genetic code changed so that the change was permanent and the latter were no longer able to breed with the former, then I think you'd have proof of evolution. Likewise, if you took the resulting flies from the experiment and reversed it, you'd have the original flies, which proves they never lost their original identity, and thus not proof of evolution.
This simple temperature experiment just happened in Europe this summer with humans. All sorts of people in northern Europe faced record temperatures, and many died as a direct result of the heat, which was by no means anywhere close to even the typical temperatures in equatorial earth, where humans live quite nicely. The point is that they were still humans, they did not jump even sub-species boundaries, which is what is predicted by evolution. And there are plenty of French guys living in Thailand and plenty of Thai guys living in France, who prefer the climates in their new homes over their native lands. Doesn't prove evolution.
Another key misconception in your post was the part about cross-breeding. What you discuss is straining a species for particular variations within that species, which is in no way whatsoever in conflict with creation theory or the Bible (which says that reproduction according to kind -- which means species -- is permitted, along with normal variations. The line is drawn at the specie boundary, which is why evolution must prove it can cross specie lines.). The point is when you allow only mild-tempered dogs to breed, you generally end up with mild-tempered dogs. No crossing of specie boundaries, they are still dogs, free to breed with anything else called a dog. When you cross a Husky with a Wolfhound, you still have a dog. This is not proof of evolution. Breed a fish with a money and come out with a bird, well, now you're talking evolution. Dropping cats from tall buildings until they realize they need to fly and sprout wings, and they change their genetic code so that that happens -- evolution. Simply holding up a bird and a cat and saying, "See some ancient living thing that we've never seen, nor can prove the existence of, long ago realized we needed something to eat mice and something else to eat worms and fly, and so here we have them, millions of years later. I proved evolution," is not really proof at all, it's simply conjecture.
> Evolution does not require faith. Faith is beleiving something even when you don't have evidence. Evolution has huge heaping moun
First, I desperately want to know the difference between a "modern protein" and an "ancient" one. After that, I'd like to understand the difference between the creationists' view of abiogenesis and that of a "true" abiogenesist. As far as I could tell, the site says [stupid, simple-minded] creationists misrepresent it as the tranformation of simple chemicals to bacteria. Then it points out that the "real" process starts with simple chemicals and ends up with a bacteria. Huh?
Okay, the author did add a bunch of intermediary chemical reaction steps, but that is extra detail, not difference. But it says that even the more detailed one is "simplified". So, if I were to make a site that added the details glossed over on this "reference" site, would the "reference" site become wrong and I would be the bigger expert? I dismissed this nonsense out of hand as a silly HTML trick designed to discredit something that is actually correct.
From what I can tell, the added detail serves as a basis for metabolising Hoyle's large number into smaller bits that can be considered reasonable (but these smaller bits are only supplied for the simplified model; we are left wondering what numbers have been omitted). And the author does that quite handily. But the odds of each step, however manageble by itself must be multiplied by the managable odds of all the other steps, even the ones he leaves out. I didn't see where he did that. By the author's reckoning, one can make all the biological precursors you need by the truckload in somewhere between week and a year.
Great, so now we've got truckloads of the stuff, statiscally speaking of course. And we're just a few weeks from the big bang. But are they all in the right place at the right time? How do they mix? And if we're making them at such a phenominal rate, why is the universe not one big vat of amino acids? Or entirely all one single bacterium type?
And then there is this: If it's all so simple, and it takes maybe a year or two to get it all done, and the initial conditions are known, why not just reproduce it in the lab and put the thing to rest already (like when the author flipped heads four times in a row in defiance of the great odds against)?
Clealry he cannot, nor can anyone else. And the best part of all: Having all the right ingredients does not bring a protein pile to life. The author is silent on this, even though the most gap-toothed corn-pone creationist could tell you that if it ain't alive, it ain't life from non-life, it's just a buncha goo. You get an "F".
So what about Hoyle's calculations? Were they wrong? The author never says that, he just says that he felt as though, in his opinion, that they showed the most extremely remote case. But I got the impression he didn't find a flaw in the answer itself. The author seemed to use exaggerated opposition as his literary device to show his disapproval for Hoyle's position. But that doesn't mean that Hoyle was wrong. Indeed, Hoyle's calculations say that we should essentially never see bacteria spontaneously create (on the earth, if memory serves) from raw chemicals. The rebuttal author says we should be producing all the precursors by the truckload, week after week, year after year, and for millions and millions of years. Great, so where is all this stuff? That it is not here proves the author's calculations are materially wrong (though correctly solved for the conditions given, just like Hoyle's). Was Hoyle wrong? Who knows, he said it would be impossible, and no one has ever proved it is possible, so it remians a valid theory in my bo
I don't know a single creationist that does not understand and accept the intuitive obviousness of variation within a species. We now know at least some of the mechanisms at work, but we don't know them all (with the possible exception of you, of course). And such variations are completely compatible with creation. In fact, varitions beyond specie boundaries and life from non-life are the only basic points in contention between evolutionists and creationists that I'm aware of. Which is why it is essential that evolutionists demonstrate these two elemens. Hence the focus on the fossil record and the hunt for the non-creation solution to the origin of life question. Abiogenesis, schmabiogenesis. Even the most anal of eveolutionary websites say this is some kind of purist i'm-more-correct-than-you-are smog that is meaningless now, because it is an ideological imperitive for evolutionists to prove life from non-life without the influence of an intelligent creator. But you knew that, didn't you.
Perhaps you can point me to the website that explains to me which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or did they both appear together? Was it male or female? Or did all three appear at once? Or maybe it was just the male and the female? Explain, please why sexual reproduction "evolved" in the first place? Or at least explain the environmental imperitive involved. Did a couple of chickens just say, "Hey, this cloning stuff is for the birds," and then dreamed it up? How did this work? Or was it the genome quietly working this out in secret and then it just sprung it on them? Was it earier in the evolutionary tree? If so, which was the species responsible, and why? How? Please, some answers, not some redirection as to why I am not qualified to ask.
For the record, the models for hurricanes and nuclear fission can be compared to the actual events, and routinely are. Measurements are made and compared with the model, which is then refined. Weather patterns are routinely used to predict hurricanes, and after-the-fact analyses are routinely run by researchers to refine the models even more. So you are unequivocally dead wrong when you say these theories are not verified experimentally. I know you're not very hot on proof -- we should all just take your word for it because, well, it's you -- BUT this little slip-up proves you know nothing of how science works. NASA's Ulysses space probe mean anything to you? NOAA's HRD program?
Why must you persist in name-calling of me and of world renowned scientists? Is your position that weak? Must be. If evolution has been proved, show me the proof. And that doesn't mean holding up a jaw bone and an inner ear bone proclaiming, See! This one turned into that one! If panspermia was the way it all happened, show me the proof with the demonstrable linking model that goes all the way to modern man. If it was Punctuated Equilibrium, show me the model of the initial conditions and tell us when we can expect the next ocurrance. Imagine! Seeing a sudden explosion of thousands of new species onto the scene. Surely if you knew, you would tell us right? If gradual change slowly over time filtered by natural selection is the method, show me how to change a fish to a monkey, or a lion into a tiger or a monkey into a man. Then set up the initial conditions and get to it. If you need something with a shorter generational span and a simpler genome, use the humble Drosophila fly. Others have failed applying your "facts" but hey, you've got it sorted, so it should be a snap. Do something other than flap your mouth about it.
Hey, that's it, stand there and flap your lips until your genome gets the idea you'd be better off a bird. Then you can also prove the part about org
The King James translation of Gen2:6 refers to a "mist" not a "stream". The Bible in Living English does likewise, as do the American Standard Version, the New World Translation and The Revised Standard Version. The paraphrased The Living Bible says water "welled up from the ground." I don't have a translation that says "stream" in these verses.
The seven creative days, in the sense they take on from Gen1:1 ends clearly with Gen2:3. The verses beginning with 2:6, there is a context switch to centering on the creation of the first man Adam. Here is made the reference to there being not yet any cultivating of the ground. All the translations that I have say 'bush of the field' and 'vegetation of the field' or similar, rather than saying all plants of all kinds. Rather, verse 5 specifically limits the statements about the plants being 'of the field'. This is said because there were no men to farm the land. So the context is clear that the plant life spoken of here refers to cultivated crops, not to the creation of "wild" plant life created on the third day (Gen1:11-13). It establishes, in effect, that the whose creation is about to be described is indeed the first man. It also sets that stage for the God's establishing ("planting") the first garden, Eden, for the man so he could learn from it and perpetuate it (Gen2:8).
That's all pretty straightforward. Gen2:4 seems to be a problem for you because of the use of 'creating of the heaven and earth' idea. Clearly, God couldn't make man before the literal universe and before turning the earth into a suitable, living planet. Even if the Bible were made up, even an moron wouldn't get that part wrong in the span of a few hundred words. So I think we can dismiss this level of disharmony out of hand. Nevertheless, let us see if there is a reasonable interpretation.
Throughout the Bible, the term "heaven" can mean several things, like most words we use today have several meanings. Specifically, "heaven" can mean God's place of dwelling, the physical universe observable by humans, the earth's atmosphere, and even a governmental organization over mankind, whether based in God's realm or here on the earth. Similarly, "earth" can mean the planet, the ground and even the human society that inhabits it.
The sense that the earth and the heavens mean social-structure sense seems to be born out by the rest of the context in Genesis, especially chapters 2-5. Here man is created and given instructions on what he is to do. He is later given a woman as a compliment and a helper and a companion. Then they rebel, declare independence and the founding of the imperfect word occurs. This same sense of the heavens and the earth is used in Psalms, most of the Prophets, especially Isaiah, and continues (for Christians) throughout the gospels (lit. declarations of the good news), the letters, and the book of Revelation. (Ps2:1-12;Isa65:17,66:1;Mt11:11;2Pet3:13;Rev21:1)
It is interesting to note that in this regard, The Bible in Living English translators chose to render "heaven" and "earth" as "sky" and "earth" and then uses that to create the proper backdrop to the act of creating Adam. Here is the way it renders Gen2:5-7:
"On the day that God Jehovah made earth and sky, when there was not yet in the earth any field bush, or any field herbage sprung up, becauseGod Jehovah had not made it rain on the earth and there were no men to work the soil, and a mist used to come up out of the earth and water all the surface of the soil, God Jehovah shaped man in clay from the soil, and blew into his nostrils breath of life, and the man became a living person."
Here the idea is that it is referring to immediate physical earth and sky that the man Adam was born into, rather than the sense of stricter translations, which make reference to the generational history (See KVJ, AS, RS, NWT). Either way, it is clear that even allo
I see your point, but there have been attempts to speed things up. There have been experiments with millions and millions of Drosophila flies (and other things with short generational timespans) that used radiation to scramble DNA, among other things. It was found time and again the mutations produced nothing new, no new advantages, and certianly nothing that lasted for more than a few generations. Of course, one argument is the combination of these things leads to useful new creatures. So, what was the result of a few generations of breeding? Normal, original fruit flies were hatched. This led to some interesting discoveries, like DNA repair systems. Either DNA gets fixed (returned to its original state) or cancer results or other disease or malformations occur. DNA is now generally regarded as a great stabilizer, not the other way around. Using animals whose generational timelines are compressed relative to our own in effect compresses time.
There is also the theory regarding punctuated equilibrium. The observation in nature is the sudden appearance of great numbers of new species and then a period of great stability, which repeated every so often. This theory was advanced to explain it. Add to that the fact that no gradual shift could be proven in the fossil record ("links" were separated by millions of years in most cases, and millions of miles too, and a real lack of numbers and complete skeletons is also a problem). And radiocarbon dating is also known to be unreliable beyond about 2,000 years which adds to the problem of establishing timelines. So, evolutionists advanced this thoery to explain it. Something in nature, governed by random chance, creates a new species explosion every so often. So we should see it at some point, or be able to set the establish the initial conditions and cause a new explosion in new species. But it hasn't happened, either by chance or on purpose. The only logical conclusion is that at best we have no idea how evolution happens (and hence we have only hypotheses or theories, not fact), or at worst, the evolution theorists just plain got it wrong, there's no such thing.
No one has ever tried to prove creationism directly that I know of, probably because of the intuitive obviousness of why it wouldn't work. Ironically, the failures of the various evolution experiments haven't undermined creation's theoretical predictions. Rather creation theory has been supported by deduction: Even with the combined intelligence of our brightest and most focused minds working on this for a hundred years or so, no one has changed one species to another, new or previously seen, nor have they been able to reproduce even the smallest and simplest elements in the theory (e.g. Miller). Time adds to the emergence of new and competing theories on the details, most of which can't be reconciled into a coherent singular whole. Creationism holds that an intelligence, far greater than our own, made all this, and that it did not happen by random pointless chance, but rather for a reason. The entire "intelligence greater than our own" part makes it obvious that we won't be able to duplicate it, which thus far has been the case. Some say this is a convenient excuse, but certainly no more convenient than the "it takes way too long" defense of evolutionists.
> As you said, Stanley Miller FAILED at his attempt to create life. If he indeed played the role of creator and failed to create, didn't he just as equally work toward a disproof of creationist theory?
Ah, yes, Miller's failures. Miller failed to create proteins because his theory was wrong, and in the end couldn't be used as part of the greater evolution theory. But Miller is not God, nor did he possess the intelligence of a god. He was just a man, thus restricted to failure in trying to become one. But the point is that he was needed to stage the events, carefully guiding the ex
Evolution is a religion -- a philosophy -- in many key areas. For starters, it requires the faith of its adherents because it has not been proven experimentally. I have yet to see the published results of where one species was observed changing into another and it could be completely explained and reproduced. Holding up two bones and saying this one turned into that one just doesn't cut it. Evolution predicts smooth transistions from one species to another, but the fossil record fails to bear it out. So what do we do? Create a theory of punctuated equilibrium to address the sudden emergence of new and different living things. So, when, exactly, based on the current theory should we expect the next wave of new species as predicted by Punctuated Equilibrium? What, not sure? Doesn't actually say? Sorry, not taking anyone's word on it. If you know how it happened, into the lab and prove it. Otherwise you're not complying with true scientific method and it remains merely a hypothesis.
Galileo fought populists that drew their political power from the religion-backed power structure. They were not defending any religious truth, they were merely endeavoring to not upset the status quo, because it would undermine their power base. It is obvious they had no concerns over scriptural truths, they just wanted to remain in political power. But Galileo proved what he said through experimentation, which is more, a lot more, than can be said about evolutionists. Evolutionists insist we take their word for it and accept evolution theory as fact without proof through experimentation. That makes evolutionists the same as Galileo's tormentors, and the opposite of Galileo himself.
If you are saying that you agree with Galileo, then you are saying that you will accept nothing as science fact until it is tested and successfully demonstrated experimentally. If so then evolution is no fact, it is merely an unproven theory like any other unproven theory. Now, if your beloved website calls evolution a scientific fact, it is incorrect, on the basis of scientific method. And you must accept that you are just like the religionists in Galileo's day, saying, "Don't experiment or show me the results. I already know the how it all works and I don't need experiments to prove it."
If life is not irreducibly complex, please bring me to the place where I can see amino acids form and enzymes and proteins and DNA and RNA and all the other components simultaneously create each other and then see the cells come to life. Then take me to the place where I can see Species A turn into Species B, or tell me when and where some new species will suddenly appear on earth so I can get a glimpse.
If you can't tell me these things, then please tell me who can. Otherwise, I'm stuck having to take your word for it. Trouble is, that's just not science.
Having read Miller's review of one of Behe's works, I am unmoved. Each has his own respectable credentials, his list of historical supporters or those on whose work they built. Miller says he agrees with Behe on lots of things. He just disagrees on other things. Miller's positions are equally untested by experimentation. And where Behe suggests that ideas that Miller endorses be tested, Miller turns it around and says that Behe's ideas should be tested first, and since that's not the way Behe presented it, he should be dismissed. Paley's work is 200 years old so it's old and dumb. Darwin's work on the the other hand is 150 years old, but not dumb? Either it's age is relevant or it's not. Miller is simply speaking out of both sides of his Ivy League mouth, saying that when Behe agrees with him he's a genius and when he disagrees he's an
It is true that Darwin published Origin of Species to explain minor variations in groups of living things, hence the title Origin of Species. Otherwise he would have titled it Origin of Life or some such thing.
Scientific investigation subjects theories to stepwise refinement. As such, the basic theory of evolution is based on random chance that produces endless mutations which are culled through natural selection (aka, survival of the fittest). Therefore it is random chance rather than intelligent design that is responsible for all we know and see. Taken to its logical conclusion, even the transforming of non-living matter to living matter must have been the product of chance. This is why, in my view, all the texts on evolution either explicitly or implicitly include the notion of life evolving from non-life.
I have found a few references over the course of today that make a point to say that strictly evolution theory excludes abiogenesis, but even those references agree that the distiction is immaterial since all modern theories of evolution are based on life from non-life at some level. This is copied directly from the University of Rochester's website regarding the scientific method:
"III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
"As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.
"Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.
Evolutionists continually dismiss out of hand evidence that suggests evolution is false or flawed. And they seem satisfied that its most basic tenets remain unproven by experimentation.
Moreover, saying that the route a nerve takes is evolutionary because it doesn't seem to be the shortest path is simply conjecture. To me it would make sense that an organ whose function is dependent on aspiration cycles would loop through the chest, if I were the engineer. But that's just conjecture too.
The simple truth is that without independent verification of the theory by experimentation, both abiogenesis and its codependent theories of evoltion are simply theories. From a scientific method perspective, it is on equal footing with the creation theory. Both require the faith of its adherents. Evolutionists don't tend to care about the "whay" part, and creationists are relatively unconcerned with the "how" part when discussing how the creator did all this -- for now. The material issue is "why" because it leads to an understanding of what happens next. That is what is important to the spiritually minded person.